You are right Mr Parallel, I should have posted the following, in the correct thread and for that I'm truly sorry. (note I can apologise for the mistakes that I make.

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BLP), formerly BlackLight Power, Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey is a company founded by Randell L. Mills in 1991. who claims to have discovered a new energy source. Mills self-published a closely related book, The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.

Critical analysis of the claims have been published in the peer reviewed journals Physics Letters A, New Journal of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics and Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. These works note that the proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics, and that the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations that have been experimentally verified many times.

In 1999, the Nobel prize winning physicist Philip Warren Anderson said he is "sure that it's a fraud" and in the same year another Nobel prize winning physicist, Steven Chu, called it "extremely unlikely". In 2009, IEEE Spectrum magazine characterized it as a "loser" technology because "most experts don't believe such lower states exist, and they say the experiments don't present convincing evidence" and mentioned that Wolfgang Ketterle had said the claims are "nonsense" BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but has not delivered a working product.[1]

I have known about Mills before this site was even up and running and Mills has not delivered any new energy source to the public since 1991. That is 25 years. Therefore:

Critical analysis of the claims have been published in the peer reviewed journals Physics Letters A, New Journal of Physics, Journal of Applied Physics and Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics. These works note that the proposed theory is inconsistent with quantum mechanics,...

References to these analyses would be helpful. I don't recall that any have been peer reviewed.

Of course Mills theory is "inconsistent with quantum mechanics." He says Quantum mechanics is wrong. His GUT, that is developed entirely from standard physics, does a better job of forecasting a number of physical constants and things like the size of small particles than quantum mechanics does.

You say that Mills is "full of shit." Lets see you show that Mills is wrong with the several examples he gave in the video where QM is in error. (If indeed you did view the video) Or do you just quote your favorite consensus and can't do it yourself? I don't think an electron is a point and there are growing numbers who agree with that.
You might find this educational. Starts at 4:30 http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/P ... 738f26811d

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

1. My comment was not addressed to you.
2. The video is the medium for transmitting precisely what was claimed/said.
3. Go pollute somewhere else as you are usually wrong and never backup what you say with references or facts.

The issue that the comment was not addressed to Ladajo is irrelevant as this is a public forum. If you wish to have a private conversation with someone send him/her a private message.

parallel wrote:Liar ladajo.
2. The video is the medium for transmitting precisely what was claimed/said.

Actually YOU used the video as a proof to support the veracity of BLP claims, but now you are stating that is only a "medium to transmit a claim".
So, what they say in the video are just "claims" or are "truths"?
The two cannot coexist, do make up your mind.

parallel wrote:
3. Go pollute somewhere else as you are usually wrong and never backup what you say with references or facts.

A statement like this, coming from you, is beyond belief.... You just have to hope that JoeStrout will keep his policy of allowing even an ill-mannered and clueless user like you to be part of this board. Should this rule ever change, you will be banned on your first post

I'm only going to provide you with 'One (1)', link to a paper that was mentioned in the Wikipedia article[1]. All the others you can do on your own time and money.

parallel wrote:I don't recall that any have been peer reviewed.

It's simple that you do not recall, it's because you have not seen, read or heard of these papers. In addition, when papers are published, it's assumed they have been peer reviewed. Whether the papers have been peer reviewed or not. Is not the point. It is up to others to invalidate these papers.

He can say what ever he likes, but his "Extraordinary Claim" that quantum mechanics is wrong requires "Extraordinary Evidence".

parallel wrote:His GUT, that is developed entirely from standard physics, does a better job of forecasting a number of physical constants and things like the size of small particles than quantum mechanics does.

So you say (but anything you say I would use a fine tooth comb to go through your statements), however this thread is about 'energy' and the production of thereof. Therefore the above quote is a Ignoratio elenchi (red herring).

parallel wrote:You say that Mills is "full of shit."

Yes, I do say, "Mills is full of shit" and others do so as well, Ladajo, for example also says "Mills is full of shit". Why do we say "Mills is full of shit", because he is a scammer and others who happen to read about Mills are at least informed as to the true nature of his intentions.

parallel wrote:Lets see you show that Mills is wrong with the several examples he gave in the video where QM is in error. (If indeed you did view the video)

Again, let me reiterate what I said above, "He can say what ever he likes, but his "Extraordinary Claim" that quantum mechanics is wrong requires "Extraordinary Evidence". Until Mills actually provides hundreds of working energy devices and the publications mentioned in the Wikipedia have been overturned. Then I will continue to say "Mills is full of shit"

parallel wrote:Or do you just quote your favorite consensus and can't do it yourself?

let me proceed with this quote:

Michael Chricton wrote:Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Guess what I follow?

parallel wrote: I don't think an electron is a point and there are growing numbers who agree with that.

You are right an electron is not a point. An electron has the wave particle duality property. However, in physics a point particle is used heavily in physics. In other words, a point particle is an appropriate representation of any object whose size, shape, and structure is irrelevant in a given context. This has been known for years and is based upon the work of Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Louis de Broglie, Arthur Compton, Niels Bohr and many others. So your quote above is half correct, (first part that is, which I have acknowledged is correct.). The second half is wrong and what was the 'point' of the above quote?

Unable to watch it. Why? Because I do not use 'Windows', I use Linux. In addition you do not even give a brief description on what it's about and I will not waste my time, effort or breath on something you have recommended.

parallel wrote:can't do it yourself?

Does not matter whether I can or cannot, it is irrelevant. BLP has been going on for 25 years and the production of the energy device has not materialised . It has been said that it will be ready by the end of 2017 (correct me if I'm wrong on this). Then it will be 26 years. How many more years will it take for you Parallel to realize that what Mills says, in particular "Will be ready at the end of the year", that Mills is full of shit?

Three sets of conditions that need to meet, before I will apologise to you and everyone who believes in Mills energy device.

1) There are hundreds of Mills energy devices that have been sold to the general public
2) The critical analysis (papers) mentioned in my article or Wikipedia have been refuted.
3) Independent researchers, not related to Mills in any shape or form have completed a thorough investigation of Mills energy device.

Let me make it abundantly clear that, Condition 1 and Condition 2 and Condition 3, must be meet before the apology is given.

Having said all the above, I'm not going to engage any further in the discussion of Mills and BLP. Why? Because, "Mills is full of shit"

Having said all the above, I'm not going to engage any further in the discussion of Mills and BLP.

Good. That saves me the trouble of correcting the many mistakes in your post.

I'll just show your first point proves nothing.
parallel wrote: "References to these analyses would be helpful."
Polygirl wrote:
"I'm only going to provide you with 'One (1)', link to a paper that was mentioned in the Wikipedia article[1]. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... ld.iop.org "

Rathke's paper was dated 2005. It doesn't look like it was peer reviewed. Mills has since answered his criticisms. Interesting to note Rathke states:

Although the hydrino model has received considerable public attention, the discussion of the underlying theory has mainly been restricted to the sweeping statement that the hydrino model is in contradiction to quantum mechanics and hence dubious (cf e.g. [6]). This lack of theoretical consideration is particularly unfortunate in view of the wealth of experimental evidence that has been published in peer reviewed journals in favour of the hydrino model.

You sound very similar to Mary Yugo and if that is you it would be a waste of time to have a discussion with you anyway. I dislike posters who hide behind anonymity. I am Adrian Ashfield, a retired engineer, as I have posted several times on this blog. I only use parallel on this site as it goes back many years here.

Parallel,
I would summarize the Rathke paper as follows:
1. There is a "wealth of experimental evidence" in favor of Hydrinos.
2. The actual GUT math is shit at proving that Hydrinos could exist.
3. QM is shit at explaining the evidence.
4. But of course QM is absolutely unequivacally correct.
5. Someone ought to do the science stuff necessary to fit the data to QM.
6. Not It!

Once again Parallel, you base your entire argument on "Millssaid" or "Rossisaid". Apparently the foundational concept in science, as Polygirl, many others, and myself have tried to point out to you, continues to escape your 'fine engineering mind'; Reproducibility. This is the key point to any science: If nobody except the 'magician' can make it happen, then it is most likely not real.

There is no mistaking that LENR, and in particular, Rossiclown, Mills, and others who do not share the 'magic' secret are suspect at best. You can claim it is about IP, however, that is a Red Herring and a grasping at straws to attempt to defend the magicians, and you know it. The best attempt (and probably in misguided good faith) to replicate Rossiclown, has been Parkhomov, who in his own way has made significant missteps in design, method, and analysis (which so far you avoid discussing), and although transparent, and even supportive (unlike Rossiclown and Mills) of others attempting to replicate his work, none (MFMP, others), have been able to do so. Where you claim replication, are cherry picks, and conclusion leaping based on "somebody saids", which ignore actual critical analysis, or thinking. This behavior to date (for a number of years now) on your part has removed any credibility you may have ever had here. For example, I invite you to look back to your early posts regarding Rossiclown, and see if you are saying anything different now than then. Any lack of change in position or perspective should be a major clue for you. As I recall, you are just as hard over now, as you were 5 plus years ago claiming Rossiclown has it all figured out and will produce real results for the world to see based on sales and testing (with-in the year, an apparent rolling window year...). Sooo, where are we now? Nothing much changed, except; Defkalion went four paws up under a cloud of fraud, and now Rossiclown himself is once again accused of fraud, and facing a likely civil ruling confirming so, as well as probable criminal charges for fraud and tax evasion (again). Mystery Customers remain mysteries, no reproducibility, and no provable sales of anything, ever, to the 'market'. Do you see a pattern?

Maybe you should try a new tack, like challenging yourself to be biased the other way (difficult, nigh, probably impossible for you given your current condition), and trying to prove that Rossiclown or Mills are full of shit. It can be illuminating for clearly uninformed and heavily biased thinkers to put on the "enemy's" shoes, and make an honest attempt to see things from another perspective. It is the first step to leaving beliefs at the door, and exploring things from an open perspective. You should give it a try, even though you have demonstrated time and again you are a bitter old man seeking meaning late in life. There is hope for you. I remain optimistic for all humans, even Rossiclown. That idiot convicted criminal, Rossiclown, may yet have a 'come to Jesus' moment, and confess his repeated sins. How about you? If you would like, I can start rolling out your old quotes and help you along. You've said and done some pretty dumbass things over the years here.

Or, you could just attempt to answer questions that have been posed to you, instead of constantly dodging the issues with topical changes and appeals to false authorities. Or, will you forever remain a cow atop a tower of eroding dirt, too stupid to realize it could collapse at any moment, and more focused on chewing it's own turds?

Moo!

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Parallel, thank you for your link to the Huub Bakker lecture at Massey University, NZ. I'll point out a rebuttal at the end of the same video (about 1:02:00) by a Prof. Tony Singer. You might want to note that name if you happen to maintain a personal a list of dicks. His performance is a perfect example of the narrow-minded academic faced with unconventional ideas. He reacts to them like he would to a smear of dog-doo on the bottom of his Earth shoe. In fact he suggested explicitly that the topic is "bullshit", his word. His remarks were mostly a collection of banalities about scientific skepticism wrapped in an insinuation that RM is a fraud. He gave the impression that he had not made any effort to understand the GUT theory. He did make one point that was at all specific: GUT implies a violation of the conservation of energy. From how the theory has been described to me, it doesn't. Does it? I noticed Dr. Singer was even shaking a little at times. I wonder if he was shaking with righteous wrath, or in embarrassment at being required to perform this rather pusillanimous hit job out of some kind of concern for his career.

nferguso.
Thank you for your sensible comments. I disagree with your " But of course QM is absolutely unequivocally correct." unless you were being sarcastic. Obviously there are problems with QM.

I agree with Mills when he talks about QM being simply math and not giving any physical clues about things like atoms and so find Mills's GUT attractive (right or wrong) in that it actually provides something one can visualize. I think he is also correct in stating that QM is largely responsible for the dearth of progress in physics for many years.

Prof. Tony Singer is just an educated version of the trolls like liar ladajo here. Of course Mills GUT does not violate conservation of energy.

If I were Weir, the very last thing I would do is have outside experts visit the company. I don’t think there is much doubt that EEStor has a few working models of their device and doesn’t need further verification that they work.

It is amazing what a person familiar with the technology might pick up in such a visit. The real value in their process is in the know-how rather than the patent and just seeing that a particular process works is very valuable to a competitor. Once you know that you can duplicate it.

And, a fool and his money are soon parted:

by parallel » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:04 pm

It seems that EEStor has requested UL certification. Still no proof of anything, but another indication that the EESU is real. I am now sufficiently persuaded to have gambled a few bucks on ZENN shares.

In his response, under oath, he states that they discovered primary particles of composition modified barium titanate having a dielectric constant greater than 33,000 and breakdown voltage of greater than 6000V …. With an unexpectedly high relative permittivity with low variance between -55C and 125C.

So, three years later they are still waiting for the patent and it is probably necessary to have a patent in order to get appropriate loans for setting up major production lines etc.

Uh oh... doubt starts to cloud the Parallel. however the Parallel EESTOR apologist is still in charge...

Postby parallel » Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:37 pm

I gather mainly from http://theeestory.com that there is increasing evidence that the EESU is real. I think if it were not, we would have seen quite different body language from Lockheed Martin at their recent press conference. LM managers were not allowed to comment directly.

As most know, year end is supposed to be the deadline for delivery of the first EESU to Zenn. Their stock price has hovered around $4 for some time, showing a remarkable balance between fear & greed as the deadline approaches.

The problem seems to be in manufacturing, that translates into a cost problem. It seems that manufacture has turned out to be more difficult than anticipated and although most of the problems have been resolved a few still remain. I'm not surprised at this and said I expected that in an earlier post. It didn't sound to be easy.

How this will be resolved in not clear. Presumably there would be a military market right now at whatever cost, but a further significant delay might be lethal to Zenn. I hope that at least a few samples of the EESU will be allowed to appear, in order to boost longer term confidence.

And, finally the fool is parted from his money, yet remains the apologist. A sure sign of a successful scam!

by parallel » Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:18 pm

EricF wrote:
Wasn't there supposed to be some sort of new years 'deadline' on these capacitors?

There never was an official delivery date, mainly a leaked conversation from Weir saying he expected to deliver in the fourth quarter.

There were several broad hints that delivery of an EESU would be before the end of 2009, but Zenn have made it clear that they would not report receipt until after third party verification of performance - that might take a month.

Not good news for sure, but not the end of hope. Several other "interesting" signs, such as Zenn arranging for Standard & Poors to report for them, the share price holding after the end of the year and two purchases of 350,000 share blocks in December.

And where is EESTOR today Parallel? How did those stocks work out for you? After six years of nothing since these posts, are you ready to admit it was a scam yet? Seeing a pattern with yourself yet Parallel?

The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Yes, I thought Weir and EEStor had something. Obviously they didn't have what they claimed. I know very little about capacitors and based this belief on what a few people said rather than following and understanding the development in detail.

The LENR case is quite different. I have been following the development closely and there have been hundreds of experiments by different people and many peer reviewed papers published about it.
Rossi says a second independent three day test of the QuarkX has been successfully completed and so it looks like he is on course to make an announcement about it late February. I see Russian Nuclear Physicist Vitaly Uzikov has congratulated him on it.
BLP also seem to be on course for later in the year. so 2017 should be interesting.